I've been thinking about Justice Scalia's position on whether a baby is a constitutional person. Neither he nor anybody on the Supreme Court has ever argued that.

In his Casey dissent, Scalia writes...

whatever answer Roe came up with after conducting its "balancing" is bound to be wrong, unless it is correct that the human fetus is in some critical sense merely potentially human. There is of course no way to determine that as a legal matter; it is in fact a value judgment. Some societies have considered newborn children not yet human, or the incompetent elderly no longer so.

This suggest that Scalia believes the equal protection clause only protects viable people, people who are autonomous and can survive on their own. Thus, if I'm reading Scalia's opinion correctly, the unborn, newborns, and the incompetent elderly are all legal non-persons. He suggests it's a "value judgment" (to be made by the people of the state) whether to protect these sub-humans.

I assume Scalia's thinking here is that other family members have to take care of babies and the incompetent elderly. Thus a state might want to allow family members to kill off these people. Or, in the alternative a state might want to criminalize killing them off.

So, for example, all 50 states have outlawed the killing of newborns. Scalia is fine with that. But he's also apparently fine with a state that allows for the killing of newborns.

In short, he has no definition of what a constitutional person is. He's rather like Obama in that sense. It's above his pay grade.

Scalia does not list the handicapped as another class that might burden family members. But a severely handicapped person could be just as burdensome as a baby or the incompetent elderly.

Thus, under Scalia's position, a state could allow family members to kill off a severely handicapped family member who is not autonomous.

In other words, a state can force us to be burdened with unborn children, crying babies, the severely handicapped, or the incompetent elderly. Or the state can allow family members to kill off these people. It's up to the states. None of these people have a right to life.

Is this Scalia's position? I really don't know. Scalia never defines the word "person" for us, and gives us no analysis of why he does not apply the equal protection clause to unborn children. Indeed, his Casey dissent suggests that he is expanding the definition of legal non-persons. Or, in other words, shrinking the equal protection clause so that it covers less and less people.

Scalia has always been quite careful to use the "baby" or "child" word in his abortion opinions. In his Carhart dissent he writes...

The method of killing a human child–-one cannot even accurately say an entirely unborn human child-–proscribed by this statute is so horrible that the most clinical description of it evokes a shudder of revulsion.

But what he doesn't talk about is why he's not applying the murder statutes. Or when he would apply the murder statutes. Can we dehumanize babies and kill them? Scalia is quiet on this point.

I think/hope that if Scalia was challenged on this, he would see that his position is truly awful. It does not hold up to scrutiny.

But he's never been challenged on it. And--shocking as it may seem--he has not done a lot of thinking in the abortion cases at all. He simply says "abortion's not in the Constitution." That's the extent of his thinking.

We have a budding police state with the IRS harassing citizens who raise their heads long enough to draw the ire of Big Brother.

In another metaphor we have Brave New World with everybody choosing the "feelies" over worry about financial collapse.

The lefties over at Daily Beast are right in there demonizing anyone who worries about the collapsing society.

I don't worry about the kids who voted for this, including three of my own. I cannot talk to them. They are so certain of their superior virtue and wisdom.

My grandchildren are hostages to amazing luck. It does provide a soothing counterpoint to old age. I won't have to see it. I can't imagine why anyone would want to live to 150. My mother lived to 103 but she lived in a world that hadn't lost its mind. I feel like we are in 1914 and the lights are going out.

My thoughts turn to who I will be wearing this weekend. The weather looks unpredictable and I will be attending events in the day as well as night, in The Berkshires.

Tanglewood is more old money Boston/NYC so the menu on tap for me is pretty easy.

Jacob's Pillow is what has me perplexed. Jacob's Pillow is an entire different beast or animal or lion. The audience is much more "modern" and definitely not "traditional" and as a result more judgey. The husband says, "how about a shirt and pants" and I am like bitch please.

Currently, I am leaning in the direction of Michael Bastian head to toe.

Scalia's dissent is weak because he accepts the "choice" worldview of the majority. The majority says it's up to the individual to decide. Scalia says it's up to the state to decide. The majority says "we need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins." Scalia agrees! He says the baby's life is a "value judgment," and the law does not answer it.

It's like Kramer vs. Kramer, except instead of fighting over who gets the kid, they are fighting over who gets to decide whether to kill him. It's Nihilist vs. Nihilist.

"Thus, if I'm reading Scalia's opinion correctly, the unborn, newborns, and the incompetent elderly are all legal non-persons. He suggests it's a "value judgment" (to be made by the people of the state) whether to protect these sub-humans."

I think you are reading it incorrectly. What he is saying, is that the question of who is a person is not a matter of fact. The examples he gives are of defenseless individuals, but it is not his intention to indicate that only those who are "incompetent" are of questionable humanity. It is people who are inconvenient whose humanity is questionable. People who ask tedious moral questions, for instance. Who needs them around? Who says they are people? The law uses the term person, but neglects to define it.

I thought a lot today about the eleven hour filibuster down in Texas to prevent any impediments to abortion. And how the speaker was a hero and how her shoes became "Iconic". Our heroines are somerhing, arent they? She was cheered for her heroic stance to protect the single most important thing to the left, more important than racial justice, more than economic parity, more than an education that could ensure a 19 year old could read cursive. We are a soul sick society. The smug smile on her heroic face as she co gratulated herself was fixed even as she uttered her unironic statement that she would do it all over in a heartbeat. A heartbeat.

Thus, if I'm reading Scalia's opinion correctly, the unborn, newborns, and the incompetent elderly are all legal non-persons

You aren't reading his opinion correctly. He simply observed that what counts as "human" is a value judgement that different societies have reached different opinions about. He expressed no opinion as to what the correct value judgement is -- nor should he, since that isn't a judge's job.

Of course, if you assume that "human" implies "has full human rights", children have never been "human" in the eyes of the law. Children are denied most of the rights adults enjoy.

Seems to me Althouse's theory of "creepy ass-cracker" was proven by Jantel's testimony today. She said the reference was to a "pervert"- though comically this was taken to refer to a "cracker" rather than "ass-cracker."

"Jacob's Pillow is what has me perplexed. Jacob's Pillow is an entire different beast or animal or lion. The audience is much more "modern" and definitely not "traditional" and as a result more judgey. The husband says, "how about a shirt and pants" and I am like bitch please."

I remember my ex-mother-in-law enthusing about Jacob's Pillow. The real modern things happened about 100 years ago, though she wouldn't be that old if she were still alive.

How old are the people who turn out for that sort of thing these days? You must feel like youngsters!

What he is saying, is that the question of who is a person is not a matter of fact.

Yes, I call bullshit on this. Person is an easy word. Live human being. The whole point of the equal protection clause is to outlaw any dehumanizing bigotry from the state (i.e. kicking some people out of the class of humanity).

it is not his intention to indicate that only those who are "incompetent" are of questionable humanity.

He could have listed Jews, or Africans, since they are two groups that have historically been defined as non-persons. He did not.

What would your response be if he said it's a "value judgment" whether Jews are people? It's true in the abstract, of course, but what would be notable is that he's singling out Jews.

He's singling out newborns and the incompetent elderly. Thus the clear implication is that he might define them as sub-human, too.

As I said, I think if he was challenged on this, he would back away from it. But there are no pro-lifers on the Supreme Court to challenge him, apparently.

You aren't reading his opinion correctly. He simply observed that what counts as "human" is a value judgement that different societies have reached different opinions about. He expressed no opinion as to what the correct value judgement is -- nor should he, since that isn't a judge's job.

The equal protection clause is law that has to be enforced. You cannot enforce it if you do not know what a person is.

You miss the point. If you want to say "lacks full human rights" is the same as "not human" then children have never been "human" under the law. Not ever, not in all of our culture's history. Not under the law, not in the Bible -- never. That's the only point I was making.

But yes, it is a crime to murder -- that's a tautology. It is not, however, always a crime to kill. :)

"Hub" equals "ODBC" functionality, as I've said several times. Now in today's federal empire, where you have a contractor doing the IT and ITE work, as well as assigning "roles & permissions", and yet another contractor doing the security clearance work, ....well what could go wrong with that?

And I grant you your point that we do allow discrimination against children. They can't drive, they can't drink, they can't contract.

Also we will charge parents for murder for neglecting to feed their child. Babies require affirmative action. It would be idiosyncratic to say that babies had full rights. Pro-lifers aren't arguing that. But we are arguing that you can't murder them.

You might think of it in terms of discriminatory intent. We don't allow 6-year-olds to drive because they will hurt themselves, or other people. We're protecting them. So that is "nice" discrimination.

"Mean" discrimination, on the other hand, is to kill a child because he's weak and helpless.

Consider that parents have full rights over their child. They control the child, yes? And they are supposed to look after the child. But we do not actually define the child as sub-human, as property, and say the parents can do whatever they want to her.

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.

This is sloppy. The appellants are arguing for a surgical procedure known as an abortion. If we're concerned about infanticide--and we should be--lawyers can answer that question by looking up the death statutes. We have laws on the books in regard to when people die.

What is a clear violation of equal protection is to mandate a surgery that would constitute a homicide of an innocent person under the law.

Equal protection actually helps us reason through these issues. We know the important biological criteria for when people die (brain activity) and so we should apply that criteria to unborn babies as well. Thus we take the homicide issue off the table.

What's the benefit of defining the baby as sub-human property? Or saying her life is irrelevant? Did that resolve the case? Or did it piss off millions of people?

We had a top shelve closer in the bullpen who up until a few weeks ago was doing a fantastic job.

Until he seemed to come down with a case of loss of confidence. He was physically A okay, but if he threw a fast ball, it wound up batted over everything.

After blowing a few games, the decision was made to give the job to a 195 pounds little guy from Japan, who barely throws 90 mph and additionally, someone who the Sox management, at the start of the season, openly expressed doubts that he could pitch back to back days... let alone be the closer.

Tonight, the little guy has made believers out of doubters by going up against the red hot, 8 and 2 over the last ten games, Toronto Blue Jays and striking the last two batters, to save his second game, in as many opportunities, on back to back nights.

Koji Uehara has a fire and an intensity that maybe doesn't register on paper, but it gives him the edge on the field.

That last link is a video of him, as a middle reliever, coming in back to the dugout after a successful 1-2-3, is a riot.

Well we are attending Leo, Laws of Gravity, at Jacobs Pillow this weekend. You know wires and suspension and all that shit. I anticipate Phillip Glass vocal samples, but that is a prerequisite for all this crap.

It ain't Martha or Merce Cunnigham but it will have to do.

I agree, it aint what is was years ago. More like Cirque light. And the NYC/Boston crowd attending will be totally bitch.

I could attend on Saturday and watch Prairie Home Companion but I don't want to puke. I mean really that midwest fuck is going to be performing at JP in the summer, so fucking gross. Jackson Brown is performing later in the "season" and I definitely would not mind watching him though.

At least it is far from the APT in Spring Green though, which I ran from at the age of 17 knowing there was something a little more interesting.

The only redemption to paying for this horseshit is you are outside and surrounded by natures beauty and no one gives a fuck if you are with your foreign, brown husband in a small town...The Berkshires.

My Dream Will Reach Fruition: I Will Cross-Breed Magpies with Squirrels. This Process will No Doubt Involve Trial-and-Error, Tiny Basters and Trade Secrets. This Newly Created Flying Squirrel will be Dubbed "Rossini Asquirrelicus" Because That is What I Choose to Name it. It Will Be Fierce and Beaked, Yet with the Characteristic Fluffy Tail of the Squirrel and Nimble Fingers. It Will Eat Baby Spiders.

If they think crying about being called bigots — when, again, the majority didn't even use that word — is going to help, I just have to laugh. You took the opportunity to oppress when it was there, and now that it's gone, you want to say you are oppressed. Man up, losers. You lost. And you deserved to lose. Now, stop acting like losers. If you can. (I bet you can't!)

I'll post the results."

I don't give a shit about gay marriage but I am offended by the majority USSC opinion and very offended by Althouse's language.

Rossini Asquirrelicus" Will Collect Pieces of Brightly-Colored String and Varied Shiny Objects and Nuts and Bring them to Its Nest. With These Items I Will Then Build Minutely Detailed Figurines of Historical Figures. You Will See These In Museums.

These Minutely Detailed Figurines of Historical Figures Made of Brightly-Colored String and Varied Shiny Objects and Nuts will Be Undoubtedly Be Copied by Unscrupulous Forgers, but Art Historians Will be Able to Tell the Difference.

People Will Consider it A Special Moment when they Spot a Rossini Asquirrelicus In Their Garden. Some Will Take Pictures; Others Will Choose to Accept a Moment as Fleeting and Simply Watch Until it Flies Away, Tail High in the Air.

"I don't give a shit about gay marriage but I am offended by the majority USSC opinion and very offended by Althouse's language.

Life is not a game."

Ah, but if you are a law school prof who thought voting for Obama would force the Democrats to take responsibility for the war on terror (or any God-damned thing, for that matter), then not only is life a game, it is theater.

I am saddened by the insults from Althouse today. Very much so. I don't know what to say. It makes me feel sick.

Me too. I like this community, I like reading the discussions, I visit nearly daily. It probably shouldn't, but it hurts to receive such vilification. Althouse--why are you so lacking in grace toward your fellow human beings, particularly those who show you such support and enable this site to be the success that it is? It is sad that you take your commenters and readers so thoroughly for granted, insult and abuse them, accuse them of ugly motives and attitudes, fail to recognize the value they bring to your brand. It is hurtful and unkind, and you should perform some soul-searching in this area.

"P.S. I am considering the extent to which I am unkind in my thoughts and words to those I disagree with. This is all getting out of hand, the tribalism and the two-minutes-hateism, and it has to stop."

Agreed.

But there is a divide, isn't there?

One that seems unbridgeable.

There are Democrats and liberals, like Althouse, who are not completely unhinged, willing to completely destroy the US or the traditions of Judeo-Christian Western Civilization yet, on the margins, they are happy for others to do so in the name of some of Judeo-Christian cultural values, like individual dignity.

I am conflicted on gay marriage.

I have gay family members, friends, colleagues, neighbors.

I, seriously, wish them nothing but the best, good will and God's Grace.

And, at a secular level, I have no concerns with gay marriage.

It might even stabilize heretofore unstable and self-destructive persons.

But, I bow to my Christian faith, it's tradition, it's values, and the reasoning of the Magisterium.

These are irreconcilable positions.

I know that.

So, I have divided thoughts, about which I have searched my heart.

And, someone, for quite obvious and transparent reasons, insults that, without any consideration for serious thought, as if Christianity was merely another temporal political system.

It isn't.

And, a little respect is in order.

Not everyone who opposes, or is concerned about gay marriage, can simply be reduced to Althouse's all-to-simplistic "bigot."

"The 14th amendment only applies to people who have been born, so not applicable in this case."

What are you basing that on?

Common-sense reading and legal precedent. Within the Constitution, its amendments, and the English common law personhood and citizenship are only every referred to in the context of someone who has been born. The notion that an unborn child is legally a "person" is a modern concept alien to 18th and 19th century law. That's why they had to pass laws against abortion in the first place, instead of just charging the abortionists with murder.

Also, you should bear in mind that "equal protection" does not actually mean "all people must be treated the same" -- if that was the case, it would be unconstitutional to exempt two-year-olds from the military draft , to try 50-year-olds as adults instead of juveniles, and so on. Legitimately different classes of people can be treated differently by the law, and *age* is the most commonly-used distinction there is.

Basically, even if "equal protection" applied to fetuses, it would just forbid the government from treating substantially similar fetuses differently from each other. A law saying "you can abort fetuses resulting from rape, but not ones resulting from consensual sex" would raise equal protection issues. Abortion-on-demand doesn't.

Well, I don't have a gay son... or children of any kind, really. It is still difficult, at times, not to hate homophobes. The insanity of treating homosexual relationships as somehow inferior to heterosexual ones drives me straight up the wall.

I just have to keep telling myself that it isn't your fault, that you can't help how you were raised and what you were taught. That in another generation the hate-fueled pushback against gay rights will just be another embarrassing chapter in the American history book.

But when people hate without reason, it is hard not to consider that a reason to hate them back.

Knights in white satin, never reaching the endLetters I've written, never meaning to send.Beauty I'd always missed with these eyes before.Just what the truth is, I can't say anymore.

'Cos I love you, yes, I love you, oh how I love you.

So much better than nights in white satin, don't you think? So I'm keeping my mondegreen even though it is harder to sign, "metal soldier" or "metal guard+er" but much more dynamic. One is passive, lazy and sleepy and the other dynamic, aggressive, hardened, and crusader. This is my opinion and I am stick'n with it. I just really hate to give up on knights after all these years.

I don't trust that flower. It is snooping on us. It is transmitting its findings via satellite to listening stations across the United States built in secret that store vast haystacks of information, because what's the point of looking for needles in haystacks before you get yourself a bunch of nice fine tall haystacks? Huh?

What they see is suspicious, a guy walking a dog, first one dog then another dog, then another dog, then back to the first dog, and yet computer crossreferencing analysis indicates no dog walking service listed in the area. I could show this in animated GIF form, that's pronounced Jiff because some guy said so, but it would take longer than it's worth and it is not funny.

But when people hate without reason, it is hard not to consider that a reason to hate them back.

I hear you. When I am hated for being a conservative, an orthodox Catholic, for being pro-life---by utterly ignorant people who haven't the faintest clue as to what those beliefs mean or awareness of the fact that I come by them honestly---I have a hard time not hating them back. Alas, we are all called to rise above.

I agree with Tim. I too have many people close to me who have wonderful gay relationships or like everyone else, sometimes not so great, but normal, healthy, and loving. I too want everything for them that I do for any straight people. I want gays to have every benefit, they earn or have as a natural human right. But, I'm not religious, so I care in a different way that is another side of the same coin - truth.

The truth matters, or nothing does, and what people are demanding with same sex marriage is a denial of truth in two forms.

Truth #1: Male / female relationships are entirely different than same sex ones, because men and women are elementally different - not in rights, but in the very nature of what they are. Consequently a pairing of the different cannot be equal to a pairing of the same. This is true of all things whether material or metaphysical. There is something absolutely special and unique about a mixing of difference to create something that is neither. There must certainly be a powerful reason why it is so prevalent among life on this planet, but even if there is no good reason, the thing is still real. It's undeniable, and without it none of us would exist.

That fact does not diminish the love or dedication possible between two same sex people, and if they find themselves only realizing that with each other then who has any standing to say it's wrong when we can plainly see it's love and it's good for them, which is good for us all if it eliminates that degree of loneliness and despair among so many of our brothers and sisters, and makes more of our community loving and stable.

But it's not the same thing. Not in its elementary nature, its purpose, its effect, or in reality. It's just not the same thing by definition. That's one truth being denied.

Truth #2: The difference identified above is a bright, stark line as old as the species, and even beyond our species. Not that same sex attraction is new. It likely always has been with us, but it has always been rare, as evolution would naturally select for breeders. Why that matters here is that it's probably the only line strong enough to be held if we are to maintain any social control over pairing of our species. No other line comes close to the stark difference of sex. If we can't justify preferring mixed sex pairings over same sex, then we can't justify preferring any thing over any other if rights of individuals are in the balance. Anything else is just too week in historical, biological, or cultural power. It seems to be opening a flood gate, drilling holes in the bulkheads, and hoping for the best. It seems irresponsible to me.

Giving all the rights and benefits is fine, but calling things that are different the same, recognizing things that are not true as true, and then putting that into our foundation strikes me as careless, and I expect it to be costly. I hope I'm wrong, because I'm sure we will do it anyway.

I just wish we could recognize that we prefer the truth to a lie that feels good, and I wish gays would not demand that we pretend, when they too know in their hearts we are pretending. The truth would not change or diminish their love or value, but the lie does.

It won't be the only lie in our foundation, so maybe we can weather it too, but all the hate and gloating is doing a lot of damage and creating new deep cracks where there were only small disappearing ones before.

Well, I had a great night out on the town and I decided to check in before a very late bedtime. I see lots of self-pity coupled with self-aggrandizement here, which always gives me a chuckle. Anyway, the sun will rise tomorrow and life will go on.

My only suggestion is that everyone should take a Con Law class, so they can understand that what happens in civil matters like marriage doesn't conflict with or even overlap with the Magisterium, Sharia or anything else unless you want them to. Which most American social conservatives seem to want. Anyway, good night! Don't let the gay bugs bite!

Perhaps, with adoptions, surrogate parenting, and other technology gays will be able to essentially reproduce like straights, and that will greatly diminish the degree to which we are being dishonest about the difference, and I would welcome that for us all, but my real concern is the future of this right to marriage and where it will be free to go now that it cannot be logically resisted on any strong grounds. Luckily that will be for others to work out for their own time.

I am saddened by the insults from Althouse today. Very much so. I don't know what to say. It makes me feel sick.

Read any fucking thread about anything to do with homosexuality, read the insults and slander and blood libel and nonsense, think about it from the perspective of someone who comments here, has "friends" here, and who happens to be gay, and then get the fuck back to me about your poor, hurt feelings.

So many people here, people that I otherwise respect, have written so much cloaked or naked vituperation about gay people, and our effect on civilization, that what little sympathy I had for your "feelings" has long evaporated.

At this point in my life I'm finished with the lot of you, the plantation master so-called "liberals" who are less distinguishable from Fascists every day, and the so-called small-government "conservatives", who have such little faith in their God and the eternal and sacred institution of marriage that they bray for the State to enshrine their doctrine in secular law, and scream "Apocalypse!" when it doesn't happen.

I'm lucky that I don't have any feelings anymore, because if I did... "sick" and "saddened" wouldn't cover it.

Students flock to the best MBA colleges inBangalore that have earned their reputation.Many of the MBA colleges in Bangalore havebeen ranked in the Top MBA colleges inBangalore in noteworthy education.Business Management College Bangalore

Yesterday, I left a waitress a tip of one dollar and twenty cents on a bill of four dollars and eighty cents. If we would like to appeal this decision, even though both of us agree with it, how many levels of the federal system can we expect to hear our case? If no court in the US is willing to overturn this decision, would it be treason to bring it to the Hague or perhaps some other world tribunal? I worry that the there are a lot of people around the world that hold the tipping community in contempt, and I hope there is an alternative to embargo and invasion in setting all the tippers free.

Within the Constitution, its amendments, and the English common law personhood and citizenship are only every referred to in the context of someone who has been born

Of course citizenship is a reference to birth. But the point of equal protection is to protect non-citizens as well. Do not conflate "citizen" with "person." That's the point of equal protection. We are not relying on the state to define humans and cast other people out of humanity.

When I say people, I am referring to humanity, the class of homo sapiens.

When we kick black people outside of the class of humanity, is that not bigotry? Substitute the word "white" for "born" in your sentence and you have the Dred Scott opinion.

Or substitute the word "straight" for "born." Now you have to be a heterosexual to be a human being. Are you happy now? Or are you starting to see the potential for bigotry?

The point of equal protection is to help us reason through these issues. But when you classify some human beings as outside the class of humanity, you are cutting yourself off from this thought process.

The Supreme Court is upset at the decapitating and dismemberments they are describing in Carhart. But they're not quite sure why they are so unhappy. Their minds are closed and yet their emotions are upset.

I say they are upset because they are defining human beings as sub-human in order to kill them. And the semantic game they are playing with the word "person" is not saving them from their own emotional upset.

I don't hate in response to hate, and although it's hard to not feel reflexive hurt when people impugn my motives, I've mostly gotten over it.

What is undeniably true and problematic though, no matter how much we can rise above hate, is that we will never find common cause with people who hate us or presume us to be evil. Thus, a choice has been made to defeat rather than convince, and that has a divisive effect beyond a single issue. And on this partIcular issue it means that the progress that has already been made toward tolerance is harmed.

I'm not personally hurt by those pro-gay marriage advocates who have chosen to demonize their opponents, but they will have to live with the effects of their choice.

Bagoh made some excellent points about the problem of redifining marriage. My feeling is that the secular institution has already been changed. Infidelity and sham marriages and marriages of convenience and bad marriages are as old as the institution, but artificial birth control and no fault divorce have drastically changed things. Marriages are no longer considered permanent, not really. Since people have failed to live up to an ideal, we've watered down the ideal.

What is different now though, the way in which we've moved farther along the path, is that homosexual marriages are a visual indicator that the idea and ideal has changed. When children grow up and learn that some of their friend's parents have divorced, they learn that some people fail at the goal of a lifelong relationship that creates a family. But when they see two men or two women married, they see a visual representation that sexual love and procreation are not really linked anymore.

Parents trying to teach children the traditional and religious values associated with sex and marriage find it much harder when the government sanctions the alternative view. I don't know that this is sufficient harm that the law should address it (I can see that we don't have a right to have the traditional/religious view sanctioned either) but it seems to me that adding the force of language suggesting that traditionalists want their view to prevail because of a desire to harm, goes too far in support of the anti-religious viewpoint. Government officials are not meeting the standard of neutrality when they impugn the motives of one side.

We might think about what creates an unborn baby. Sex! (Or, for nerds who prefer science, test tubes!)

We create children through sex with our sexual opposites. Thus we have discriminated sexually since the very early days of humanity. If you want a biological child, you must discriminate. It's not hateful to point this out. Is it?

And wanting to have a child, I would suggest, is a good purpose in humanity, not a malign one.

Yet liberals already tell us (all the time!) that we can't discriminate on the basis of sex. Now they are saying it in regard to sex itself.

And of course sex discrimination often is bad. "You can't do that job, you're a woman."

But in some cases sex discrimination makes obvious sense. For instance, when you want to have a baby.

It would be nice if liberals would recognize all the sex discrimination that we do in our private lives. "Yes, I discriminate on the basis of sex. Of course I do, I'm straight." Gay people also discriminate on the basis of sex.

Is it evil and wrong to discriminate on the basis of sex? Liberals seem to be heading down the path of saying, "Yes, always!"

The liberal paradigm is to dismiss its opponents as haters and bigots. If marriage has to be an institution without regard to sexuality, then your private life should also be without regard to sexuality.

If you're "sexist," you're a bigot, right? And sexist will ultimately include anybody who discriminates on the basis of sex.

It appears that we are heading towards a world where sex discrimination will be forbidden and unacceptable in all its forms.

I think, when it comes to sex, sex discrimination is normal and right. I've always thought this way. And not just me, but our entire society has always thought this way.

Are we to believe that sex discrimination is wrong in regard to sex itself? And if it is, where does this thought take us?

I say that bisexuality is the PC attitude of the future. If you are bisexual, you are open-minded. You are not discriminating on the basis of sex. And all other forms of sexuality will be deemed close-minded, harsh, judgmental, and mean.

What is undeniably true and problematic though, no matter how much we can rise above hate, is that we will never find common cause with people who hate us or presume us to be evil.

No matter who the human object of the hate is, this dynamic always leads to catastrophe, and it would be somewhat comforting if people who consider themselves smart and insightful could see that (hi Alhouse!) or if they so know that and are just trolling us (a distinct possibility) they should stop fucking around and soberly consider that they are playing a dangerous and malevolent game.

"Parents trying to teach children the traditional and religious values associated with sex and marriage find it much harder when the government sanctions the alternative view."

Baloney.

Despite the remorseless march of change and "progress," plenty of people everywhere continue to hew to their own traditions and beliefs, and they continue to raise their children in these traditions and with these beliefs.

Children, being autonomous actors, have the wherewithal, whether when they're younger or when they've grown, to determine for themselves whether they prefer to accept what they've been raised to believe or to come to other conclusions for themselves.

(Moreover, even your assertion were true, the larger society has no obligation to permit or promote only that which is in accord with the belief systems of particular subsets of the whole population. Allowing gay marriage does not "impose" it on anyone, despite the whining of those who feel it their business to tell others how to live; it merely removes a legal impediment to a portion of our society that had previously been rendered unequal under the law, allowing them the same option to marry that the rest of us assume as a birthright. Aren't we always bragging how "free" we are? This just gives more people bragging rights.)

"I think, when it comes to sex, sex discrimination is normal and right. I've always thought this way. And not just me, but our entire society has always thought this way."

What exactly do you mean here by "sex discrimination?"

This particular matter aside, just because "you" (any individual) or an entire society thinks a certain way does not mean it is just or right. Look at the societies where the honor killing of women (by their husbands or families) is common custom. Is is acceptable just because the many (or even if all) hold firmly in their beliefs that is not only "right" but necessary?

Dude really? That's supposed to be a rebuttal to what I said, and you want to be taken seriously? I could list a thousand examples how you can only get certain things by combining difference, but I thought the point was obvious to adults over 5.

Look, just say "I want what I want, and I don't give a shit about anyone who might question it." A lot of people don't want to honestly argue the issue. They want the outcome already accepted, the want people who disagree shamed, they want tyranny. That's what you choose when you don't argue in good faith. I don't know for sure whats right, but I'm not afraid to go looking. I don't have any issue with gay marriage, except the dishonesty. This kind of argument is exactly my point.

To think about it another way, Robert, we all agree that a colorblind society is the goal, right? (Or we used to agree, anyway--I think many liberals have decided that race discrimination is a good thing).

But who thinks a sex-blind society is a good thing? That seems really odd.

You think it is "harsh and irrational" to attempt to extend full protection of the law to those who are denied equal treatment (and privileges) under the law?

No one can impose a change in one's attitudes or beliefs, but equal rights and protection under the law fortunately do not depend on the particular biases of individuals or groups of individuals in a society.

However, once a previously excluded group is included under the reach of the law, over time people become used to the extension of rights to those who had been denied those rights previously, and attitudes do change. While racism is still a significant issue in this country, it is far less pernicious, omnipresent, overt, violent, and disruptive than was common just a few decades ago. Attitudes that were commonplace and barely noticed (if at all) 50 years ago now seem shockingly primitive, ignorant and cruel; in time, that we once excluded gays from the right to marry will seem just as primitive, cruel and ignorant.

"Well, I don't have a gay son... or children of any kind, really. It is still difficult, at times, not to hate homophobes. The insanity of treating homosexual relationships as somehow inferior to heterosexual ones drives me straight up the wall."

The word "homophobe" was invented to suggest that heterosexuals have an irrational fear of homosexuals. I suppose there are some who do. The institution of marriage has as its primary goal the production of children. I suppose someone who doesn't "have children of any kind, really", may not see that as a particularly worthy goal. But some of us feel that raising children is a loftier activity than anal sex. Apparently, the supreme court does not agree.

Dude really? That's supposed to be a rebuttal to what I said, and you want to be taken seriously? I could list a thousand examples how you can only get certain things by combining difference, but I thought the point was obvious to adults over 5.

I was simply poking fun at the literal meaning of the blanket statement you made.

You used "equal" in its mathematical sense of "identical". Yes, obviously a gay couple is not identical to a heterosexual couple. No two heterosexual couples are "equal", either -- so what? We don't require marriages to be "equal" in that sense and never have.

You're basing your argument on something that doesn't matter. Which is why I poked fun at you.

Read any fucking thread about anything to do with homosexuality, read the insults and slander and blood libel and nonsense, think about it from the perspective of someone who comments here, has "friends" here, and who happens to be gay, and then get the fuck back to me about your poor, hurt feelings.

So many people here, people that I otherwise respect, have written so much cloaked or naked vituperation about gay people, and our effect on civilization, that what little sympathy I had for your "feelings" has long evaporated.

At this point in my life I'm finished with the lot of you, the plantation master so-called "liberals" who are less distinguishable from Fascists every day, and the so-called small-government "conservatives", who have such little faith in their God and the eternal and sacred institution of marriage that they bray for the State to enshrine their doctrine in secular law, and scream "Apocalypse!" when it doesn't happen.

I'm lucky that I don't have any feelings anymore, because if I did... "sick" and "saddened" wouldn't cover it.

Understandable and I get it. You and I have had discussions on this before and we just agree to disagree. It didn't make me lose respect for your position, but if you lose respect for mine, then I suppose I'd have to respect that. Cheers, happiness, and long life to you. Maybe someday we will run into each other on the same proverbial fork in the road and hopefully not whistle past each other.

"You're basing your argument on something that doesn't matter. Which is why I poked fun at you."

My point is that the difference is a fact, and that the truth matters. This point is the whole issue, and if it doesn't matter why is there so much of a fight to pretend it's not true, when everyone knows it is.

In all fairness, we should acknowledge that not all of you have an irrational fear of homosexuals. Some of you just have an irrational revulsion for homosexuals.

Ah, yes...the collective "you" once again. May I have "permission" to not give a damn?

That's rhetorical, because I don't and won't anyway.

I'm pretty much support bagoh20's thing about truths in all of tis palaver. When same sex couples can perform coitus I'll call them "equal." We're not all equal, for example: There are several people on this board who are smarter than me, more experienced, better educated, and so forth. I none-the-less do not feel threatened by them, even in our inequality.

Continuing a bit....what we are all entitled to is "equal opportunity" and from a secular purely legal standpoint, that is all defeat of DOMA means...and only in those states where applicable...as I understand it, about 40% of them.

One question that is really bugging me: short of the tax benefits that one partner has to die for the other to receive .... in the age when it is common for both partners to work, just what tax benefits do we think marriage confers on anyone?

Baloney right back at you, Robert Cook. Why do you think the strictest traditionalists live in relatively closed groups, like the Amish? people have to be able to see the bigger picture to see the good of a shared morality regarding sex and family, lived out by people in their community, in order to understand why they should exchange short term pleasure for the long term good.